You currently have javascript disabled. Several functions may not work. Please re-enable javascript to access full functionality.

Welcome to Ultimate Subaru Message Board, my lurker friend!

Welcome to Ultimate Subaru Message Board, an unparalleled Subaru community full of the greatest Subaru gurus and modders on the planet! We offer technical information and discussion about all things Subaru, the best and most popular all wheel drive vehicles ever created.

We offer all this information for free to everyone, even lurkers like you! All we ask in return is that you sign up and give back some of what you get out - without our awesome registered users none of this would be possible! Plus, you get way more great stuff as a member! Lurk to lose, participate to WIN*!

Say hello and join the conversation

Subscribe to topics and forums to get automatic updates

Get your own profile and make new friends

Classifieds with all sorts of Subaru goodies

Photo hosting in our gallery

Meet other cool people with cool cars

Seriously, what are you waiting for? Make your life more fulfilling and join today! You and your Subaru won't regret it, we guarantee** it.

* The joy of participation and being generally awesome constitutes winning** Not an actual guarantee, but seriously, you probably won't regret it!

I'm too embarassed to talk about it much. I made a blanket statement recently about a certain type of joint being used. I was wrong; it was "some " use them and others don't 1994-98. i'm gonna shutup. They LOOKED like that type from the outside. I would normally think that the two would be the same for any vehicle.

I can only imagine they should be of the same type on each side of the car. Meaning, a new vehicle would not have one type of axle on say the left side and a different type on the right or vise versa.
Front vs Rear may have different joint types because the rear wheels do not turn.

Obviously at that age there has been ample time for the boots on the original axles to split. People tend to replace the entire axle when that happens since it is easier. So it's no stretch of the imagination to think at least one if not more axles have been replaced by now.

Joint type doesn't matter. Some use the Rzeppa ball-type plunge joints (OEM are typically built this way), and some use the Tripod-type plunge joints - EMPI uses these on some of their aftermarket EA series axles for example. They all work just fine and most people never even realize that internally they are different types of joints.

anndd so even though they're different, still in good condition I can just reboot/clean/grease them and put them on anyway? won't make much of a difference one is bearing like and the other the tripod like..?

I guess not. These folks know. The different are apparently made to interact well enough to Exceed any one worn-out one. Inherently, i would prefer 2 of the same type unless there is clear knowlege that one is superior. The tri-ball is a somewhat older design used extensively in Europe. Interestingly they would use double-cardans for higher hp vehicles. That is a double-U joint and then again coupled to another u-joint at the transaxle. The sequence of the inividual workings of a 4 point yoke could cause serious trouble if not cancelled out properly. These are still the basis of serious $X$ 4X4 axles last I looked yet are not as driver friendly for regular folks. Enter the CV multiballed type.
Both the tri-ball and multi are properly referred to as Constant Velocity for they don't exhibit the rotational variance of basic u-joint at an an angle. That is why so much attention is paid to driveline alignment in raised vehicles.
There is a Reason why typical u-joint is used there which goes back.
Are we done yet:horse: sorry folks . So the tri-ball is sorta a blend of the two as is the other and you can rebuild a tri ball or our other but not the case it rides in. U-joints can be rebuilt all the time but rely on sliding splines for reach. Then the splines wear. So we got it pretty good